Perkins

Perkins v. Wakeham

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 1070·86 Cal. 580·25 P. 51
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 3, 1890No. 13670California1,263 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Paterson, J.

— The appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial, so far as it affects the respondent town of Santa Ana, must be dismissed.

The ■ notice of intention to move for a new trial was *581 not served on said respondent. There was an attempt to serve the statement, but the attorney upon whom it was served had no authority to accept service, which fact was known to appellant at the time of service.

The motion of respondent the town of Santa Ana to dismiss the appeal from the order denying a new trial is granted, and said appeal, in so far as it affects said respondent, is dismissed. A motion was made on various grounds, also, to dismiss the appeal from the judgment, but as the findings support the judgment, and no error appears on the face of the roll, we deem it best not to pass on the motion to dismiss, but to affirm the judgment.

The court found that in a former action brought by Wakeham against Perkins and others, to determine all adverse claims to the property described in the complaint herein, judgment was entered in favor of said Wakeham, defendant herein, adjudging him to be the owner of the property.

It is claimed by appellant that the decree in the former…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.